FT on Labour's un-radical ideas

    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    https://www.ft.com/content/afad36c4-...d%2F%2Fproduct

    This is what is so stupid about all of this. It's all so totally benign. Yet we are supposed to believe this is Trotskyism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    https://www.ft.com/content/afad36c4-...d%2F%2Fproduct

    This is what is so stupid about all of this. It's all so totally benign. Yet we are supposed to believe this is Trotskyism.
    Why can't I get this? I've got a student sub only - is this article from the Lex column or something?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Clicked on.

    Read you needed a subscription.

    Aborted mission.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    ibzombie96


    It let me read it :dontknow:

    Here let me engage in some communism. The article is below.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    With the Labour party’s leadership election over, the people in charge have affirmed their control. That should, one hopes, mean that they now have no excuse not to develop a solid, sensible policy platform to deal with Britain’s challenges. In that respect, the shadow chancellor’s appearance at the Labour party conference on Monday is of particular interest.

    The text of John McDonnell’s speech is padded with fluff to make the conference-goers feel good. And Labour, just like the government, is flailing in making its mind up about what relationship it wants the UK to have with the EU after Brexit. But among the concrete domestic policy proposals McDonnell did make, there were several that made good sense. Belying the image some try to paint of a zany leftwing radical, McDonnell is offering policies deserving of a serious hearing in Westminster and among voters.

    First, on tax avoidance, there can be little doubt that two of McDonnell's proposals are highly attractive. More resources for the tax authorities would easily pay for themselves. And forcing greater transparency on British dependencies and territories is a necessary and desirable step towards taxation that is both efficient and fair.

    Second, McDonnell promises a £250bn public investment effort. It is right to worry that £250bn ofstate-led investment may find its way into white elephants. But that’s a reason to scrutinise how Labour would make investment choices, not the goal of investing more. To keep the figure in perspective, note that it amounts to about 13 per cent of Britain’s current annual economic output. If spread over a five-year period, it’s not the sort of borrowing that would threaten the government’s creditworthiness, even if it was all wasted on unproductive investments. And since 2009, absolute gross fixed capital formation has been running a good £50bn annually below the pre-crisis trend, so a £250bn boost could be seen as barely even making up lost ground. In this area it is no sin to be ambitious.

    Third was the big-ticket number of the speech: a minimum wage of £10 an hour by 2020. This has attracted the predictable jeers from those who think wage floors are always job-killers (Kamal Ahmed has a more sober guide to the debate). But of course McDonnell is only doubling down on the policy set out by George Osborne last year. So this should not be seen as a left-right issue, but rather a divide between those who do and don’t think wage floors can spur higher productivity in the economy to an extent that will make the higher level financially viable. And note that McDonnell is emphasising measures to make less unequal the pre-tax earnings distribution in the economy — what wonks call “predistribution” — over measures to achieve more equal post-tax outcomes through redistribution. This is more of a sheep in wolf’s clothing than the opposite.

    There is no doubt that McDonnell struck an unabashedly interventionist tone. But whenever he got specific, he more often than not aimed at the real shortcomings of Britain’s mediocre economy, such as low investment rates and poor productivity. (These are well described in Simon Tilford's recent lament on the British economic model, which, he fears, Brexit will turn into “the poor man of Europe”.)

    This may explain the reactions to the speech from business groups such as the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI, both of which mixed concerns about McDonnell’s aggressive rhetoric against private business with compliments for some of the specifics. At the core of it all is uncertainty about what McDonnell’s ardour for an interventionist state really means — and whether he is content to shape the deep structures of the economy or yearns to micromanage business decisions at every level.

    McDonnell may do well to spend some time with the concluding chapter of Keynes’sGeneral Theory, which he can conveniently find on the website of marxists.org. There Keynes explains why his view that the state should manage society’s capital investments does not entail the full trappings of a planned economy. On the contrary, Keynes writes, getting investment right reduces the need for planning elsewhere.A little more Keynes and a little less Marx could take the new incarnation of the Labour party a long way. Other readablesNumbers news
    • There is a glass ceiling in the income distribution: new research finds that women are badly under-represented in the top 10, 1 and 0.1 per cent of incomes — and the situation is worse in Norway, Denmark and the UK than in the other countries studied.
    To receive Martin Sandbu’s Free Lunch by email every workday, sign up here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It let me read it :dontknow:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    With the Labour party’s leadership election over, the people in charge have affirmed their control. That should, one hopes, mean that they now have no excuse not to develop a solid, sensible policy platform to deal with Britain’s challenges. In that respect, the shadow chancellor’s appearance at the Labour party conference on Monday is of particular interest.Sample the FT’s top stories for a weekYou select the topic, we deliver the news.Select topic Select topic Top Stories Brexit US Election 2016 China slowdown Millennial Economy March of the Robot Plunging oil price Global Terror Tech disruption Advertising Connected Cars Enter email addressInvalid emailSign upBy signing up you confirm that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions, cookie policy and privacy policy.The text of John McDonnell’s speech is padded with fluff to make the conference-goers feel good. And Labour, just like the government, is flailing in making its mind up about what relationship it wants the UK to have with the EU after Brexit. But among the concrete domestic policy proposals McDonnell did make, there were several that made good sense. Belying the image some try to paint of a zany leftwing radical, McDonnell is offering policies deserving of a serious hearing in Westminster and among voters.First, on tax avoidance, there can be little doubt that two of McDonnell's proposals are highly attractive. More resources for the tax authorities would easily pay for themselves. And forcing greater transparency on British dependencies and territories is a necessary and desirable step towards taxation that is both efficient and fair. Second, McDonnell promises a £250bn public investment effort. It is right to worry that £250bn ofstate-led investment may find its way into white elephants. But that’s a reason to scrutinise how Labour would make investment choices, not the goal of investing more. To keep the figure in perspective, note that it amounts to about 13 per cent of Britain’s current annual economic output. If spread over a five-year period, it’s not the sort of borrowing that would threaten the government’s creditworthiness, even if it was all wasted on unproductive investments. And since 2009, absolute gross fixed capital formation has been running a good £50bn annually below the pre-crisis trend, so a £250bn boost could be seen as barely even making up lost ground. In this area it is no sin to be ambitious.Third was the big-ticket number of the speech: a minimum wage of £10 an hour by 2020. This has attracted the predictable jeers from those who think wage floors are always job-killers (Kamal Ahmed has a more sober guide to the debate). But of course McDonnell is only doubling down on the policy set out by George Osborne last year. So this should not be seen as a left-right issue, but rather a divide between those who do and don’t think wage floors can spur higher productivity in the economy to an extent that will make the higher level financially viable. And note that McDonnell is emphasising measures to make less unequal the pre-tax earnings distribution in the economy — what wonks call “predistribution” — over measures to achieve more equal post-tax outcomes through redistribution. This is more of a sheep in wolf’s clothing than the opposite.[img][/img]There is no doubt that McDonnell struck an unabashedly interventionist tone. But whenever he got specific, he more often than not aimed at the real shortcomings of Britain’s mediocre economy, such as low investment rates and poor productivity. (These are well described in Simon Tilford's recent lament on the British economic model, which, he fears, Brexit will turn into “the poor man of Europe”.)This may explain the reactions to the speech from business groups such as the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI, both of which mixed concerns about McDonnell’s aggressive rhetoric against private business with compliments for some of the specifics. At the core of it all is uncertainty about what McDonnell’s ardour for an interventionist state really means — and whether he is content to shape the deep structures of the economy or yearns to micromanage business decisions at every level.McDonnell may do well to spend some time with the concluding chapter of Keynes’sGeneral Theory, which he can conveniently find on the website of marxists.org. There Keynes explains why his view that the state should manage society’s capital investments does not entail the full trappings of a planned economy. On the contrary, Keynes writes, getting investment right reduces the need for planning elsewhere.A little more Keynes and a little less Marx could take the new incarnation of the Labour party a long way. Other readablesNumbers news
    • There is a glass ceiling in the income distribution: new research finds that women are badly under-represented in the top 10, 1 and 0.1 per cent of incomes — and the situation is worse in Norway, Denmark and the UK than in the other countries studied.
    To receive Martin Sandbu’s Free Lunch by email every workday, sign up here.
    Too long. Stopped reading after the first sentence.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nirvana1989-1994)
    Too long. Stopped reading after the first sentence.
    Why did you click on a thread pertaining to link to a Financial Times article if you can't read more than one line?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Why did you click on a thread pertaining to link to a Financial Times article if you can't read more than one line?
    Because I can.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    You can make yourself look stupid sure. Well done.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    ibzombie96


    It let me read it :dontknow:

    Here let me engage in some communism. The article is below.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    With the Labour party’s leadership election over, the people in charge have affirmed their control. That should, one hopes, mean that they now have no excuse not to develop a solid, sensible policy platform to deal with Britain’s challenges. In that respect, the shadow chancellor’s appearance at the Labour party conference on Monday is of particular interest.

    The text of John McDonnell’s speech is padded with fluff to make the conference-goers feel good. And Labour, just like the government, is flailing in making its mind up about what relationship it wants the UK to have with the EU after Brexit. But among the concrete domestic policy proposals McDonnell did make, there were several that made good sense. Belying the image some try to paint of a zany leftwing radical, McDonnell is offering policies deserving of a serious hearing in Westminster and among voters.

    First, on tax avoidance, there can be little doubt that two of McDonnell's proposals are highly attractive. More resources for the tax authorities would easily pay for themselves. And forcing greater transparency on British dependencies and territories is a necessary and desirable step towards taxation that is both efficient and fair.

    Second, McDonnell promises a £250bn public investment effort. It is right to worry that £250bn ofstate-led investment may find its way into white elephants. But that’s a reason to scrutinise how Labour would make investment choices, not the goal of investing more. To keep the figure in perspective, note that it amounts to about 13 per cent of Britain’s current annual economic output. If spread over a five-year period, it’s not the sort of borrowing that would threaten the government’s creditworthiness, even if it was all wasted on unproductive investments. And since 2009, absolute gross fixed capital formation has been running a good £50bn annually below the pre-crisis trend, so a £250bn boost could be seen as barely even making up lost ground. In this area it is no sin to be ambitious.

    Third was the big-ticket number of the speech: a minimum wage of £10 an hour by 2020. This has attracted the predictable jeers from those who think wage floors are always job-killers (Kamal Ahmed has a more sober guide to the debate). But of course McDonnell is only doubling down on the policy set out by George Osborne last year. So this should not be seen as a left-right issue, but rather a divide between those who do and don’t think wage floors can spur higher productivity in the economy to an extent that will make the higher level financially viable. And note that McDonnell is emphasising measures to make less unequal the pre-tax earnings distribution in the economy — what wonks call “predistribution” — over measures to achieve more equal post-tax outcomes through redistribution. This is more of a sheep in wolf’s clothing than the opposite.

    There is no doubt that McDonnell struck an unabashedly interventionist tone. But whenever he got specific, he more often than not aimed at the real shortcomings of Britain’s mediocre economy, such as low investment rates and poor productivity. (These are well described in Simon Tilford's recent lament on the British economic model, which, he fears, Brexit will turn into “the poor man of Europe”.)

    This may explain the reactions to the speech from business groups such as the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI, both of which mixed concerns about McDonnell’s aggressive rhetoric against private business with compliments for some of the specifics. At the core of it all is uncertainty about what McDonnell’s ardour for an interventionist state really means — and whether he is content to shape the deep structures of the economy or yearns to micromanage business decisions at every level.

    McDonnell may do well to spend some time with the concluding chapter of Keynes’sGeneral Theory, which he can conveniently find on the website of marxists.org. There Keynes explains why his view that the state should manage society’s capital investments does not entail the full trappings of a planned economy. On the contrary, Keynes writes, getting investment right reduces the need for planning elsewhere.A little more Keynes and a little less Marx could take the new incarnation of the Labour party a long way. Other readablesNumbers news
    • There is a glass ceiling in the income distribution: new research finds that women are badly under-represented in the top 10, 1 and 0.1 per cent of incomes — and the situation is worse in Norway, Denmark and the UK than in the other countries studied.
    To receive Martin Sandbu’s Free Lunch by email every workday, sign up here.
    I feel that the term 'interventionist' in the eyes of many will have a negative connotation to it. If it could be described more as 'government not looking the other way when people are struggling to make ends meet', it might seem less offputting to people than the idea of a government 'intervening' in their lives. Even though the content is the same.

    The tories have shown that packaging can be far more important than the contents.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I feel that the term 'interventionist' in the eyes of many will have a negative connotation to it. If it could be described more as 'government not looking the other way when people are struggling to make ends meet', it might seem less offputting to people than the idea of a government 'intervening' in their lives. Even though the content is the same.

    The tories have shown that packaging can be far more important than the contents.
    This is where the Podemos leadership are correct. Being identified with an old fashioned left is counterproductive. Appearing left wing when your policies are moderate is not a good tactic. It is better to appear moderate.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This is where the Podemos leadership are correct. Being identified with an old fashioned left is counterproductive. Appearing left wing when your policies are moderate is not a good tactic. It is better to appear moderate.


    Indeed. I actually saw a little bit of that from Corbyn and Clive Lewis the other week who were saying 'it isn't left wing to want workers to be paid fairly' etc.
    If you can make left wing proposals seem centrist and normal you're on to a winner. It's why plenty of UKIP folk have an affinity towards the NHS, they don't see it as a left wing concept.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nirvana1989-1994)
    Too long. Stopped reading after the first sentence.
    It is interesting that people now feel they can proudly assert they won't read something from a quality newspaper because it is too taxing. Not having a go at you as much as commenting on how public discourse has been in demise in the internet age.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    It is interesting that people now feel they can proudly assert they won't read something from a quality newspaper because it is too taxing. Not having a go at you as much as commenting on how public discourse has been in demise in the internet age.
    I was messing with OP.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This is where the Podemos leadership are correct. Being identified with an old fashioned left is counterproductive. Appearing left wing when your policies are moderate is not a good tactic. It is better to appear moderate.
    This sums up the problem I have with Labour under the Corbyn leadership. I am not necessarily opposed to many of his economic policies, but rather I find that the man's wider world-view and the events behind his solidification of power typify a strain in old-left politics I cannot support. His regressive views regarding the UK's foreign policy and role in the world are extremely damaging to causes - left-wing causes at that - which are close to my heart, such as support for secular democracy in the Middle East, reform within Russia, etc.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    https://www.ft.com/content/afad36c4-...d%2F%2Fproduct

    This is what is so stupid about all of this. It's all so totally benign. Yet we are supposed to believe this is Trotskyism.
    Saw it again with Corbyn using the slogan 'Socialism in the 21st century'. If you call it socialism, people won't like it. But if you tell them of socialist ideas, such as the state building more houses and the NHS, they will support it.

    Packaging is everything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ibzombie96)
    Why can't I get this? I've got a student sub only - is this article from the Lex column or something?
    I've got a student sub too, it's appearing on me. What it might be is that FT is really *****y at staying logged in. I've often gone to articles only to find the page asking me to subscribe. And then I find I'm not logged in. To log in (it doesn't have a clear log in button, go to the MyAccount button at the top right, it will force you to log in. Then paste the address of the article back into your search bar.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    https://www.ft.com/content/afad36c4-...d%2F%2Fproduct

    This is what is so stupid about all of this. It's all so totally benign. Yet we are supposed to believe this is Trotskyism.
    Corbyn is not Trotskyist in his economic policy. In many ways he is to the right of Ed Miliband, particularly on banking reform.

    But on foreign policy, defence and security policy and in his tactics and associations, he adopts Trotkyist, mainline communist and pro-Russian positions. There are Trots in significant positions of power in Momentum. Many of the Trotskyist organisations like SWP, AWL and the Socialist Party are strong Corbyn supporters and are either joining the Labour Party if they can get away with it or getting involved in Momentum. That's not just a coincidence, they rightly view Corbyn as being highly sympathetic to their goals and a means by which they could accrue great power if he ever got into government.

    On defence and security policy, Corbyn essentially does the Kremlin's bidding. Sure, he's not receiving secret transmissions with his orders, but they don't have to; over the years the Soviet Union (and Russia as its heir) built up a very tight, interlocking set of ideologies that serve to support the interests of the Russian nation, whether it is capitalist or communist. So Corbyn calls for the dismantling of Trident. He puts into question whether he would honour our alliances. He makes clear that he would leave NATO if he had the power. He was for years involved at a very high level with the CND, which it is proven received money from the KGB and was being manipulated by it.

    The KGB wasn't supporting the CND because they were desirous of world peace and the universal brotherhood of man. They supported it because the dismantling of the UK's nuclear forces tended to benefit the Soviet conventional and nuclear posture in Western Europe. Corbyn has very clearly spoken out in favour of blatantly illegal Russian actions like the violent, irredentist/fascist annexation of the Crimea. He has strongly supported the Russian line in Syria. On domestic security policy, Corbyn's closest ally John McDonnell called for MI5 to be dismantled, which would be a wet dream for the intelligence planning staff in the SVR's Western Europe directorate.

    Corbyn takes a strongly anti-NATO position, and adopts a line that tends to put the small eastern European states like the Baltics and Ukraine in great vulnerability. Russia sees these nations as being part of its "sphere of influence", a conception of uinadulterated imperialism if ever there was one. And yet Corbyn has strongly supported that concept, that somehow people like the Latvians and the Poles and the Lithuanians, who suffered under the Soviet boot for decades, somehow ultimately belong to the Kremlin. It is one of the most despicable positions Corbyn has got behind.

    And in party matters, Corbyn is adopting classic communist intimidation tactics and social control stratagems; having fanatical 'Red Guards' to attack and abuse his enemies, intimidating those who speak out against him into silence while maintaining plausible deniability, planning to develop programmes for political indoctrination of children. These are classic communist tactics, and of course it's hardly surprising that he would adopt these sorts of measures when Corbyn himself is so hands-off and irrelevant and the majority of the leader's power is vested in Seumas Milne, a man who repeatedly expressed his admiration for Joe Stalin and the Soviet Union.

    The squealing and whining and "Who? Me? Nooo, surely not"s from the Cult of the Blessed Jeremy and their fellow travellers are wearing extremely thin. Of course you have lost all objectivity and so anything that isn't positive to Jezbollah will be disregarded in your mind.

    Tell me, what would Corbyn have to do for you to criticise him? The members of the cult never seem to be able to answer this (or when they do, whatever they say they would criticise him for is something he's already done)

    JRKinder KimKallstrom JamesN88
    Offline

    3
    Lol I stopped supporting Labour when I found out that they are actually communist. They are just jealous of high net worth individuals who have worked their guts off and who were once workers and cannot stand to see success. Honestly, socialism & communism needs to DIE.

    Labour only supports the short term growth of a worker, what happens when the worker earns 50k? and has a strong degree/good job?

    Their answer to life is just TAX the rich while stupid workers sit at home, jobless because they are 1) **** 2) lazy 3) love soaking the rich and being an abuser to the benefit system.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Corbyn is not Trotskyist in his economic policy. In many ways he is to the right of Ed Miliband, particularly on banking reform.

    But on foreign policy, defence and security policy and in his tactics and associations, he adopts Trotkyist, mainline communist and pro-Russian positions. There are Trots in significant positions of power in Momentum. Many of the Trotskyist organisations like SWP, AWL and the Socialist Party are strong Corbyn supporters and are either joining the Labour Party if they can get away with it or getting involved in Momentum. That's not just a coincidence, they rightly view Corbyn as being highly sympathetic to their goals and a means by which they could accrue great power if he ever got into government.

    On defence and security policy, Corbyn essentially does the Kremlin's bidding. Sure, he's not receiving secret transmissions with his orders, but they don't have to; over the years the Soviet Union (and Russia as its heir) built up a very tight, interlocking set of ideologies that serve to support the interests of the Russian nation, whether it is capitalist or communist. So Corbyn calls for the dismantling of Trident. He puts into question whether he would honour our alliances. He makes clear that he would leave NATO if he had the power. He was for years involved at a very high level with the CND, which it is proven received money from the KGB and was being manipulated by it.

    The KGB wasn't supporting the CND because they were desirous of world peace and the universal brotherhood of man. They supported it because the dismantling of the UK's nuclear forces tended to benefit the Soviet conventional and nuclear posture in Western Europe. Corbyn has very clearly spoken out in favour of blatantly illegal Russian actions like the violent, irredentist/fascist annexation of the Crimea. He has strongly supported the Russian line in Syria. On domestic security policy, Corbyn's closest ally John McDonnell called for MI5 to be dismantled, which would be a wet dream for the intelligence planning staff in the SVR's Western Europe directorate.

    Corbyn takes a strongly anti-NATO position, and adopts a line that tends to put the small eastern European states like the Baltics and Ukraine in great vulnerability. Russia sees these nations as being part of its "sphere of influence", a conception of uinadulterated imperialism if ever there was one. And yet Corbyn has strongly supported that concept, that somehow people like the Latvians and the Poles and the Lithuanians, who suffered under the Soviet boot for decades, somehow ultimately belong to the Kremlin. It is one of the most despicable positions Corbyn has got behind.

    And in party matters, Corbyn is adopting classic communist intimidation tactics and social control stratagems; having fanatical 'Red Guards' to attack and abuse his enemies, intimidating those who speak out against him into silence while maintaining plausible deniability, planning to develop programmes for political indoctrination of children. These are classic communist tactics, and of course it's hardly surprising that he would adopt these sorts of measures when Corbyn himself is so hands-off and irrelevant and the majority of the leader's power is vested in Seumas Milne, a man who repeatedly expressed his admiration for Joe Stalin and the Soviet Union.

    The squealing and whining and "Who? Me? Nooo, surely not"s from the Cult of the Blessed Jeremy and their fellow travellers are wearing extremely thin. Of course you have lost all objectivity and so anything that isn't positive to Jezbollah will be disregarded in your mind.

    Tell me, what would Corbyn have to do for you to criticise him? The members of the cult never seem to be able to answer this (or when they do, whatever they say they would criticise him for is something he's already done)

    JRKinder KimKallstrom JamesN88
    This isn't even including his supporting of the IRA (an openly-Marxist group) when they were being funded and armed by the KGB...........
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Corbyn is not Trotskyist in his economic policy. In many ways he is to the right of Ed Miliband, particularly on banking reform.

    But on foreign policy, defence and security policy and in his tactics and associations, he adopts Trotkyist, mainline communist and pro-Russian positions. There are Trots in significant positions of power in Momentum. Many of the Trotskyist organisations like SWP, AWL and the Socialist Party are strong Corbyn supporters and are either joining the Labour Party if they can get away with it or getting involved in Momentum. That's not just a coincidence, they rightly view Corbyn as being highly sympathetic to their goals and a means by which they could accrue great power if he ever got into government.

    On defence and security policy, Corbyn essentially does the Kremlin's bidding. Sure, he's not receiving secret transmissions with his orders, but they don't have to; over the years the Soviet Union (and Russia as its heir) built up a very tight, interlocking set of ideologies that serve to support the interests of the Russian nation, whether it is capitalist or communist. So Corbyn calls for the dismantling of Trident. He puts into question whether he would honour our alliances. He makes clear that he would leave NATO if he had the power. He was for years involved at a very high level with the CND, which it is proven received money from the KGB and was being manipulated by it.

    The KGB wasn't supporting the CND because they were desirous of world peace and the universal brotherhood of man. They supported it because the dismantling of the UK's nuclear forces tended to benefit the Soviet conventional and nuclear posture in Western Europe. Corbyn has very clearly spoken out in favour of blatantly illegal Russian actions like the violent, irredentist/fascist annexation of the Crimea. He has strongly supported the Russian line in Syria. On domestic security policy, Corbyn's closest ally John McDonnell called for MI5 to be dismantled, which would be a wet dream for the intelligence planning staff in the SVR's Western Europe directorate.

    Corbyn takes a strongly anti-NATO position, and adopts a line that tends to put the small eastern European states like the Baltics and Ukraine in great vulnerability. Russia sees these nations as being part of its "sphere of influence", a conception of uinadulterated imperialism if ever there was one. And yet Corbyn has strongly supported that concept, that somehow people like the Latvians and the Poles and the Lithuanians, who suffered under the Soviet boot for decades, somehow ultimately belong to the Kremlin. It is one of the most despicable positions Corbyn has got behind.

    And in party matters, Corbyn is adopting classic communist intimidation tactics and social control stratagems; having fanatical 'Red Guards' to attack and abuse his enemies, intimidating those who speak out against him into silence while maintaining plausible deniability, planning to develop programmes for political indoctrination of children. These are classic communist tactics, and of course it's hardly surprising that he would adopt these sorts of measures when Corbyn himself is so hands-off and irrelevant and the majority of the leader's power is vested in Seumas Milne, a man who repeatedly expressed his admiration for Joe Stalin and the Soviet Union.

    The squealing and whining and "Who? Me? Nooo, surely not"s from the Cult of the Blessed Jeremy and their fellow travellers are wearing extremely thin. Of course you have lost all objectivity and so anything that isn't positive to Jezbollah will be disregarded in your mind.

    Tell me, what would Corbyn have to do for you to criticise him? The members of the cult never seem to be able to answer this (or when they do, whatever they say they would criticise him for is something he's already done)

    JRKinder KimKallstrom JamesN88


    An excellent post. This should be circulated in a broadsheet.
    No doubt it will come general election time.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 29, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you ever go to a non Russell Group uni?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.